On the Social Contract or Principles of Political Right
Book I
Rousseau’s goal with this book is to ascertain if there can be any “sure and legitimate rule of administration” which would include characteristics that served the prescribed union of justice and utility.
Chapter I: Subject of the First Book
"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."
In this book, Rousseau addresses the problem we discussed a little in class – that there is virtually no where on earth man can go to escape government and social order. How did situation come about? He claims that “social order is a right which is the basis of all other rights…but this right does not come from nature.” Instead, he will argue that social order is founded on convention. In chapters II – V, he offers evidence for his assertion.
Chapter II: The First Societies
"The most ancient of all societies, and the ones that is natural, is family.”
Here, just like in the "Origins of Inequality", Rousseau makes the claim that children remain attached to parents only as long as is necessary for them to gain independence; the two parties then part ways and regain their liberty. Continued existence of the family beyond this point occurs out of convention. He equates the still-united family to the first “political societies” with the father as the ruler and the subjects as the children.
Rousseau then sets out to rebut counter-arguments to his assertion. He first addresses the claims made by Aristotle that society formed naturally because men are not naturally equal; instead "some were born for domination and others for slavery”. He agrees with Aristotle, but believes Aristotle “took the effect for the cause”, meaning that he attributed the earthly condition of men to the natural order of things. However, Rousseau would claim that a man’s condition of slavery was born out of an external force and perpetuated by their own cowardice. (This last point could be explained better- xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
Chapter III: The Right of the Strongest
“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty.”
Rousseau refutes the claim that societies formed out of physical force or domination. A legitimate state must have citizens that act obediently out of their own will. Therefore, he claims that yielding to force is “an act of necessity” and not of will or duty; “if we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought.”
Chapter IV: Slavery
“For what does a people sell itself?”
If individuals cannot sell themselves as slaves to a master, why would they make themselves subject to a king? Rousseau offers and dismisses possible reasons for this voluntary slavery and again reasserts his theory of social compacts out of convention:
Not for subsistence – the king does not provide his subjects with the basic necessities; on the contrary, they provide for him
Not for protection or “civil tranquility” – while they may be protected from one another, they are not protected from the king himself; he has the power to oppress them; “tranquility is found also in dungeons.”
Not gratuitously – Rousseau states this is “absurd and inconceivable” and such people would be “out of their minds” (the reason could be made clearer - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
>
# Not arbitrarily – the state could not form arbitrarily, otherwise each generation of children would be in a position to accept or reject the legitimacy of the government. This is not the case.
Not to escape the “state of war” – man in their primitive state of nature is in neither the state of war nor peace; he is content and has no mutual relations enough to sustain either. War ensues when there is a relation between the warring entities and not individual persons. Reiterated, war occurs between State and State and not person to person. Therefore, man would not form a State to escape the state of war when the state of war stems from the existence of the State. (This needs clarification. The point is that war is not a state that can occur between individual human beings, among whom there is only battle or combat; it's always a state that occurs between states. Comparison to Hobbes might be useful - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
>
# Not due to “right of the conquest” – the “right of the conquest” is the right of the conqueror to kill the conquered. The theory assumes that the conquered can buy back their lives with slavery. However, this theory is rooted in the “right of the strongest” and cannot form a legitimate duty on the part of its conquered-citizens.
Chapter V: That we must always go back to a First Convention
Social order, stemming from anything except convention, would be “an aggregation, but not an association.” The existence of a social order preceded the election of a king or ruler. Rousseau claims that only out of a convention of cooperation did such order form in the first place.
Chapter VI: The Social Compact
Rousseau tells that men eventually “reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state.” Evolution of a sort became necessary if the human race were to continue. However, whereas men could not invent brand new powers to combat these obstacles, they could employ strength in numbers to surmount their problems.
However, how can one pledge their liberty without harming their own interests? Rousseau argues that in the Social Contract, the will of the individual is equivalent to the common will; therefore, in pursuing the common good, one will be pursuing their own interests. Moreover, the rights are the same for all and each man rules over each other man. He sums up the definition of a social compact as:
“Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an individual part of the whole.”(analysis? What could this mean? - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
This excerpt therefore portrays two different types of binding and reciprocal relationships: 1) each man is given a right to his own sense of autonomy and power as an individual citizen, and 2) each man accepts his status as an equal to all other men with the same rights and autonomous powers. However, it is important to note that a ban can choose to "un-bind" himself from this relationship, in which case, he will cease to have the priveledges and further powers bestowed upon him when he initially entered into the agreement.
He then defines some terms: the public person was first the city, and then the Republic/Political Body. Now it is called State when passive; Sovereign when active; and Power when compared to others like itself. Its associates are called the people if collective; citizens, if severally; and subjects as beings under the law.
Chapter VII: The Sovereign
As a member of the sovereign under this social contract, individuals have freely chosen to enter into two simultaneous agreements. (word choice? - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006). As a member of the Sovereign, they have obligations to individuals and as members of the state, they are obligated to the Sovereign. There is an almost double standard because the Sovereign is bound to itself- but also should not impose upon itself a law which it cannot infringe. There cannot be any sort of fundamental law binding on the body of the people, not even the social contract. This means that the Sovereign is truly a governing body for the people and by the people, and its power ceases to exist if it acts beyond the responsibilities bestowed upon it by the people. This therefore distinguishes the Sovereign from a dictator or absolute ruler who chooses to govern based on its own personal interests. (What could Rousseau mean? - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
The Sovereign cannot alienate any part of itself not can it submit to another Soveriegn. This would be in Rousseau's words "self-annihilation." This body politic or Sovereign is united in one body and it is impossible to attack one member without attacking all. The two contracting parties are obliged by duty and interest to help one another and men should seek to combine all possible advantages.
The Sovereign cannot have any interest contrary to those of the individuals who compose it and it is impossible for the body to want to hurt its members. The Soveriegn, therefore, is always exactly what it is supposed to be. This applies only to members however and not to subjects. The subjects have no assurance that the Soveriegn will look out for their own interests since the Sovereign cannot be sure of subjects' fidelity.
Each individual may have a will that goes against the general will of a citizen. He may wish to be a citizen but at the same time, not want the negative aspects of being a subject. It is because of this that the Sovereign can justify civil undertakings which would under other circumstances seem immoral and tyrannical. (Some examples might help in explaining these difficult passages - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
Chapter VIII: The Civil State
Basically the shift from the state of nature to the civil state is a very positive thing for man. For example, instinct is replaced by justice, and instead of acting on impulses and right of appetite, man now consults his reason before listening to his inclinations. And though he may see himself deprived of some advantages that come with being in the state of nature, the benefits of civil society far outweigh them, as "his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul uplifted" and he turns from being "a stupid and unimaginative animal" into "an intelligent being and a man". (Why is this really better than the state that Rousseau praised in the Second Discourse? - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
Natural liberty is bounded by the strength of the individual, whereas civil liberty is limited by the general will; and we see a change in possession, which comes from force, to property, which can be founded only on a positive title. (This could use clarification. Are people more independent in the social state? Does any kind of social state have the advantages that Rousseau suggests, or only some? - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
Chapter IX: Real property
Each person has the natural right to his basic necessities; however he also has the right to certain “possessions”, which is a positive right to a single, extra, “exclusive” good. Each person gives both himself as well as the goods that he possesses at the formation of the social compact. However, his possessions do not become possessions of the Sovereign; instead their control under the State strengthens the legitimacy of the individual’s rights to the goods by ensuring the respect of what belongs to him. The individual becomes the “first occupier” in this case. (I'm not quite sure that this is what Rousseau has in mind. Perhaps some quotations? - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
Rousseau then echoes Locke’s theories in his qualifications of ownership of land (link - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006):
the land must not yet be inhibited
a man must occupy only the amount he needs for his subsistence
possession must be taken, not by an empty ceremony, but by labor and cultivation
Rousseau ends this chapter with “a fact on which the whole social system should rest”: that the social compact does not destroy natural inequality (which always exists between men) but instead substitutes it for an equality that is moral and legitimate; “men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal rule.”
SIDE COMMENT: This comment is interesting because it is relevant to our previous class discussions about equality of opportunity. (Integrate this comment into the paragraph? - xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
(also, shouldn't we say something about whether Rousseau thinks the social contract is possible in the presence of inequalities of wealth?- xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
Study Questions
What does Rousseau mean by "the general will"? How does it differ from the majority will?
Who is sovereign? What are the limits on this sovereignty?
How does Rousseau define government? What is the relationship between the people and this government?
How does the individual's sense of freedom and autonomy change under this new social contract?
Do individuals naturally have a sense of morality and justice? If not, when do they acquire this?
(Add your own or modify these - xmarquez Oct 16, 2006)
Table of Contents
On the Social Contract or Principles of Political Right
Book I
Rousseau’s goal with this book is to ascertain if there can be any “sure and legitimate rule of administration” which would include characteristics that served the prescribed union of justice and utility.
Chapter I: Subject of the First Book
"Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."In this book, Rousseau addresses the problem we discussed a little in class – that there is virtually no where on earth man can go to escape government and social order. How did situation come about? He claims that “social order is a right which is the basis of all other rights…but this right does not come from nature.” Instead, he will argue that social order is founded on convention. In chapters II – V, he offers evidence for his assertion.
Chapter II: The First Societies
"The most ancient of all societies, and the ones that is natural, is family.”Here, just like in the "Origins of Inequality", Rousseau makes the claim that children remain attached to parents only as long as is necessary for them to gain independence; the two parties then part ways and regain their liberty. Continued existence of the family beyond this point occurs out of convention. He equates the still-united family to the first “political societies” with the father as the ruler and the subjects as the children.
Rousseau then sets out to rebut counter-arguments to his assertion. He first addresses the claims made by Aristotle that society formed naturally because men are not naturally equal; instead "some were born for domination and others for slavery”. He agrees with Aristotle, but believes Aristotle “took the effect for the cause”, meaning that he attributed the earthly condition of men to the natural order of things. However, Rousseau would claim that a man’s condition of slavery was born out of an external force and perpetuated by their own cowardice. (This last point could be explained better -
Chapter III: The Right of the Strongest
“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty.”Rousseau refutes the claim that societies formed out of physical force or domination. A legitimate state must have citizens that act obediently out of their own will. Therefore, he claims that yielding to force is “an act of necessity” and not of will or duty; “if we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought.”
Chapter IV: Slavery
“For what does a people sell itself?”If individuals cannot sell themselves as slaves to a master, why would they make themselves subject to a king? Rousseau offers and dismisses possible reasons for this voluntary slavery and again reasserts his theory of social compacts out of convention:
- Not for subsistence – the king does not provide his subjects with the basic necessities; on the contrary, they provide for him
- Not for protection or “civil tranquility” – while they may be protected from one another, they are not protected from the king himself; he has the power to oppress them; “tranquility is found also in dungeons.”
- Not gratuitously – Rousseau states this is “absurd and inconceivable” and such people would be “out of their minds” (the reason could be made clearer -
xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
># Not arbitrarily – the state could not form arbitrarily, otherwise each generation of children would be in a position to accept or reject the legitimacy of the government. This is not the case.
- Not to escape the “state of war” – man in their primitive state of nature is in neither the state of war nor peace; he is content and has no mutual relations enough to sustain either. War ensues when there is a relation between the warring entities and not individual persons. Reiterated, war occurs between State and State and not person to person. Therefore, man would not form a State to escape the state of war when the state of war stems from the existence of the State. (This needs clarification. The point is that war is not a state that can occur between individual human beings, among whom there is only battle or combat; it's always a state that occurs between states. Comparison to Hobbes might be useful -
xmarquez Sep 26, 2006)
># Not due to “right of the conquest” – the “right of the conquest” is the right of the conqueror to kill the conquered. The theory assumes that the conquered can buy back their lives with slavery. However, this theory is rooted in the “right of the strongest” and cannot form a legitimate duty on the part of its conquered-citizens.
Chapter V: That we must always go back to a First Convention
Social order, stemming from anything except convention, would be “an aggregation, but not an association.” The existence of a social order preceded the election of a king or ruler. Rousseau claims that only out of a convention of cooperation did such order form in the first place.
Chapter VI: The Social Compact
Rousseau tells that men eventually “reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state.” Evolution of a sort became necessary if the human race were to continue. However, whereas men could not invent brand new powers to combat these obstacles, they could employ strength in numbers to surmount their problems.
However, how can one pledge their liberty without harming their own interests? Rousseau argues that in the Social Contract, the will of the individual is equivalent to the common will; therefore, in pursuing the common good, one will be pursuing their own interests. Moreover, the rights are the same for all and each man rules over each other man. He sums up the definition of a social compact as:
“Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an individual part of the whole.” (analysis? What could this mean? -
This excerpt therefore portrays two different types of binding and reciprocal relationships: 1) each man is given a right to his own sense of autonomy and power as an individual citizen, and 2) each man accepts his status as an equal to all other men with the same rights and autonomous powers. However, it is important to note that a ban can choose to "un-bind" himself from this relationship, in which case, he will cease to have the priveledges and further powers bestowed upon him when he initially entered into the agreement.
He then defines some terms: the public person was first the city, and then the Republic/Political Body. Now it is called State when passive; Sovereign when active; and Power when compared to others like itself. Its associates are called the people if collective; citizens, if severally; and subjects as beings under the law.
Chapter VII: The Sovereign
As a member of the sovereign under this social contract, individuals have freely chosen to enter into two simultaneous agreements. (word choice? -
The Sovereign cannot alienate any part of itself not can it submit to another Soveriegn. This would be in Rousseau's words "self-annihilation." This body politic or Sovereign is united in one body and it is impossible to attack one member without attacking all. The two contracting parties are obliged by duty and interest to help one another and men should seek to combine all possible advantages.
The Sovereign cannot have any interest contrary to those of the individuals who compose it and it is impossible for the body to want to hurt its members. The Soveriegn, therefore, is always exactly what it is supposed to be. This applies only to members however and not to subjects. The subjects have no assurance that the Soveriegn will look out for their own interests since the Sovereign cannot be sure of subjects' fidelity.
Each individual may have a will that goes against the general will of a citizen. He may wish to be a citizen but at the same time, not want the negative aspects of being a subject. It is because of this that the Sovereign can justify civil undertakings which would under other circumstances seem immoral and tyrannical. (Some examples might help in explaining these difficult passages -
Chapter VIII: The Civil State
Basically the shift from the state of nature to the civil state is a very positive thing for man. For example, instinct is replaced by justice, and instead of acting on impulses and right of appetite, man now consults his reason before listening to his inclinations. And though he may see himself deprived of some advantages that come with being in the state of nature, the benefits of civil society far outweigh them, as "his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul uplifted" and he turns from being "a stupid and unimaginative animal" into "an intelligent being and a man". (Why is this really better than the state that Rousseau praised in the Second Discourse? -
Natural liberty is bounded by the strength of the individual, whereas civil liberty is limited by the general will; and we see a change in possession, which comes from force, to property, which can be founded only on a positive title. (This could use clarification. Are people more independent in the social state? Does any kind of social state have the advantages that Rousseau suggests, or only some? -
Chapter IX: Real property
Each person has the natural right to his basic necessities; however he also has the right to certain “possessions”, which is a positive right to a single, extra, “exclusive” good. Each person gives both himself as well as the goods that he possesses at the formation of the social compact. However, his possessions do not become possessions of the Sovereign; instead their control under the State strengthens the legitimacy of the individual’s rights to the goods by ensuring the respect of what belongs to him. The individual becomes the “first occupier” in this case. (I'm not quite sure that this is what Rousseau has in mind. Perhaps some quotations? -Rousseau then echoes Locke’s theories in his qualifications of ownership of land (link -
Rousseau ends this chapter with “a fact on which the whole social system should rest”: that the social compact does not destroy natural inequality (which always exists between men) but instead substitutes it for an equality that is moral and legitimate; “men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal rule.”
SIDE COMMENT: This comment is interesting because it is relevant to our previous class discussions about equality of opportunity. (Integrate this comment into the paragraph? -
(also, shouldn't we say something about whether Rousseau thinks the social contract is possible in the presence of inequalities of wealth?-
Study Questions
- What does Rousseau mean by "the general will"? How does it differ from the majority will?
- Who is sovereign? What are the limits on this sovereignty?
- How does Rousseau define government? What is the relationship between the people and this government?
- How does the individual's sense of freedom and autonomy change under this new social contract?
- Do individuals naturally have a sense of morality and justice? If not, when do they acquire this?
- (Add your own or modify these -
xmarquez Oct 16, 2006)
>